The revamp of the Stocksbridge Community forum website is (almost) complete. It is now possible for you to contribute comments, events, news and much more.
You need to register as a user and then simply type!
Initially, all contributions will be moderated. However, it is possible to become a 'trusted contributor.' Your input will then go live as soon as you have finished typing.
We are holding three workshops in the New Year when this process will be explained and you will be assisted to become a 'trusted contributor. For further details and to book your place, please send an email which includes your contact details.
Gallery
Comments
With regard to the Excerpt from Read, 2000, provided above, I should, perhaps, mention that when an oak gets as old as the Melbourne Road veteran in Stocksbridge the cross-sectional area of its trunk largely consists of “heartwood” (i.e. it largely consists of "dead" wood). There may only be a few millimetres or a couple of centimetres of living wood (“sapwood”), surrounding the heartwood. Hence the necessity of a detailed inspection by a competent arboriculturist.
One of the best illustrations that I have seen of the evolution of the heartwood:sapwood ratio throughout the life of a tree is Figure 6 in the following reference (available online as a free PDF document):
Green, T., 2009. Stating the Obvious: The importance of an Open Grown Tree – Acorn to Ancient. [Online]
Available at: http://www.treeworks.co.uk/downloads/Veteran_Environmental_Papers/Statin...
[Accessed 8 August 2013].
In the document, Figure 6 (on page 7) is actually provided to illustrate the "Sequential changes to the hollowing of forest form trees". It illustrates the development of an internal cavity by showing the cross sectional area of lower stem (the trunk) occupied by, or lost to, decay at different stages throughout the life of a tree, with the decayed area coloured orange. However, the same illustration could just as well be used to illustrate the cross sectional area of lower stem occupied by heartwood at different stages throughout the life of a tree (with the coloured area representing heartwood rather than decay or cavity).
THE TREE HAS GONE!
The local paper reported that the tree was felled this Monday (1st April). The stump has been ground out and nothing more remains. Does anyone have a link to the Picus tomograms that Amey said they would commission, or any photographs of the logs or stump? It would be interesting to know the extent of the cavity that was present within the tree.
Here's a link to the newspaper article:
http://www.looklocal.org.uk/wordpress/?p=3314
Just wondering, does anyone know what happened to the wood from the Melbourne Rd veteran oak? I note that the cord wood (short lengths of wood from the crown) and the bole (trunk) were removed from site, but have failed to appear on the nearby green, further along the road. Perhaps making eco-piles with the cord wood was considered too much of a potential fire hazard (piles could have been wired down to prevent theft/vandalism)? Was it sold as fire wood or wood chip?
As for the bole (trunk), I thought the intention was to return it to the community. It would have been in keeping with national and local policy to leave it as close to the site as possible, intact: i.e. on the nearby green, where it would have contributed toward attainment of biodiversity objectives and could have been used as a play log and educational resource.
THE DECISION TO FELL
With regard to the report from the detailed inspection (performed on 27th January 2014) of the Melbourne Road veteran oak.
Here are some excerpts from the report:
"The results of the Tomography indicate that the extent of decay did not breach t/R ratio of 30/70%, the point at which fully-crowned trees become dangerous..."
"...the following management options were considered:
A. Removal and replacement if highway safety obligations prevent safe retention in the carriageway.
B. “Heavy” reduction of the existing crown volume (approx.. 30%) and instigation of a long term heritage tree management strategy with annual inspections. The installation of line markings and/or bollards to highlight tree encroachment and guide traffic.
Following much determination, option A was considered most appropriate".
The recommendation for annual inspection is perhaps a little excessive, given that the tree was apparently healthy; oak is well known to be particularly successful in hindering the spread of microbial infection within its parts; oak is also well known to be successful in compensating for loss of cross-sectional area, through the production of reaction wood (termed "adaptive growth" in the British Standards), which effectively maintains structural integrity (of stem/branch or root), enabling plant parts to have a safety factor greater than that of most mammal bones (Mattheck et al., 1993).
It would appear that the detailed inspection was only commissioned to create the impression that those responsible (both Amey and the Council) were attempting to do things the right way, after initially taking a decision to remove the tree without a necessary and appropriate hazard assessment and subsequent informed risk assessment. To my mind, what has happened has been an appalling and unacceptable waste of taxpayer’s money. It is a shame that those concerned cannot be issued with some form of proportionate financial penalty.
Hopefully, lessons will have been learnt from the appalling way in which the whole process was handled. It is unfortunate that the local community will have to suffer the consequences of a decision making process in which they had no part. Such old veteran trees, particularly oak, are extremely rare along our city streets.
The final decision on the future of the Melbourne Road veteran oak should have been taken by an arboriculturist (as defined within British Standard 3998).
A copy of the tree report has been sent to Cllr A.Brelsford.
Reference:
Mattheck, C., Bethge, K. & Schafer, J (1993) Safety Factors In Trees. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 165, p.185-89.
For a little background on the evolution of the assessment of trees, see the following:
Van Wassenaer, P. & Richardson, M., 2009. A review of tree risk assessment using minimally invasive technologies and two case studies. Arboricultural Journal, Volume 32, pp. 275-292.
Freely available online at:
http://richardsontreecare.ca/resources/Pub-1.pdf
Or at…
http://urbanforestinnovations.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Pub-1.pdf
HAZARD ASSESSMENT: references and links
Cullen, S., 2002. Trees and wind: wind scales and speeds. Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 28, p. 237-242.
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/newresults.asp
Sonic tomography was used to inspect the Melbourne Rd veteran oak. You can find out more about this technology and its limitations in the references below. The publication by Rabe et al (2004) shows examples of tomograms like those produced for the Melbourne Rd veteran oak (the tomograms are the colourful computer generated images of cross sections of stem/trunk).
Johnstone, D., Moore, G., Tausz, M. & Nicolas, M., 2010. The measurement of wood decay in landscape trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, Volume 36, p. 121–127.
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/articles.asp?JournalID=1&VolumeID=36&IssueID=3
Rabe, C., Ferner, D., Fink, S. & Schwarze, F. W. M. R., 2004. Detection of decay in trees with stress waves and interpretation of acoustic tomograms. Arboricultural Journal, Volume 28, p. 3-19.
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=8041824615938212061&hl=en&as...
Excerpts from "BS 3998:2010 Tree work. Recommendations":
From Annex C of the standard:
C.4.2 "Veteranization"
"NOTE 2 Some attempts have been made to introduce desired species of
decay fungi (e.g. Laetiporus sulphureus) into veteranization wounds. The
decay produced by such fungi provides good habitats and tends not to
shorten the life of the tree by extending into functional sapwood."
From section 3 of the standard. "Terms and definitions"
3.29 "Veteranization"
"controlled infliction of damage on a tree to achieve a specific habitat
objective
NOTE This is undertaken to promote or emulate the development of
some of the features of a veteran tree, especially the wildlife habitats and
shelters that are provided by decaying wood and cavities (see Veteran
trees: a guide to good management [1*]). When undertaken, it is usually
on young or early-mature trees."
*This publication is Read, 2000, as quoted in ,my previous postings (above).
Excerpts from "BS 3998:2010 Tree work. Recommendations":
From Annex C of the standard:
C.4.2 "Veteranization"
"NOTE 2 Some attempts have been made to introduce desired species of
decay fungi (e.g. Laetiporus sulphureus) into veteranization wounds. The
decay produced by such fungi provides good habitats and tends not to
shorten the life of the tree by extending into functional sapwood."
From section 3 of the standard. "Terms and definitions"
3.29 "Veteranization"
"controlled infliction of damage on a tree to achieve a specific habitat
objective
NOTE This is undertaken to promote or emulate the development of
some of the features of a veteran tree, especially the wildlife habitats and
shelters that are provided by decaying wood and cavities (see Veteran
trees: a guide to good management [1*]). When undertaken, it is usually
on young or early-mature trees."
*The publication referenced here is Read, 2000, as quoted in ,my previous postings (above).
Just to make it clear to readers, the standard does not condone widespread veteranization practice at every opportunity. A commentary at C.4.2 of the standard states that the purpose of veteranization is
“…to encourage the development of decay and other features characteristic of veteran trees when a major AGE GAP in the tree population would otherwise lead to a break in the CONTINUITY of the wildlife habitats and shelter provided by such trees, ESPECIALLY in DECAYING WOOD AND CAVITIES."
As I understand it, the management plan for Wadsley and Loxley Common prescribes the practice of veteranisation.
The link provided above for the freely available PDF of BS 5837 (2012) "Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations" is no longer functional. That means those wanting to purchase a copy will have to pay £200!
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030213642
However, you can get a good idea of its content by viewing the standard it replaced - BS 5837 (2005) "Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations", which is still available to view and download as a PDF, free of charge at the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council website:
http://www.merthyr.gov.uk/English/EnvironmentAndPlanning/Countryside/Doc...
The National Tree Safety Group (2011) Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission (Forestry Commission stock code: FCM 024).
Excerpt from page 44:
“WHAT IS A DEFECT?
the term “defect” can be misleading, as the significance of structural deformities in
trees (variations from a perceived norm) can be extremely variable. indeed,
deformities can be a response to internal hollowing or decay, compensating for loss of wood strength and providing mechanical advantage, allowing the tree to adapt to
wind and gravitational forces. With inadequate understanding, so-called defects may be erroneously confused with hazards and, furthermore, hazards with risk – so unless the risk of harm arising from a hazard is properly taken account of, management can be seriously misinformed, potentially leading to costly and unnecessary intervention.
NTSG definition: “a defect in the context of the growing environment of a tree is a structural, health or environmental condition that could predispose a tree to failure”.
If any of the links I have provided do not work when you click on them, or some message is displayed telling you that the page is unavailable or something, try copying and pasting the link in to your address bar. That should work. ;)
Apologies for the layout of the information I have provided, but this forum presents everything as it would appear in a text document and there are no formatting options. :(
With regard to trees such as the veteran oak on Melbourne Road, the following national tree safety guidance is particularly pertinent:
“WHAT IS A DEFECT?
the term “defect” can be misleading, as the significance
of structural deformities in trees (variations from a perceived norm)
can be extremely variable. Indeed,deformities can be a
response to internal hollowing or decay, compensating
for loss of wood strength and providing mechanical
advantage, allowing the tree to adapt to wind and
gravitational forces. With inadequate understanding,
so-called defects may be erroneously confused with hazards
and, furthermore, hazards with risk – so unless the risk
of harm arising from a hazard is properly taken account of,
management can be seriously misinformed, potentially leading
to costly and unnecessary intervention.
NTSG definition: “a defect in the context of the growing
environment of a tree is a structural, health or environmental
condition that could predispose a tree to failure”.
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011a, p. 44)
CAVITIES
If your tree has a cavity (an open space within a stem, branch or root as a result of decay) whether the cavity is open or closed (concealed, as with the case of the Melbourne Rd veteran oak), there are calculations that can be done to help assess the structural integrity of the tree.
I've located a marvellous document (a hand-out from the Kansas Arborists Association Conference) that outlines the methods currently in use:
Luley, C., 2006. Measuring Strength Loss from Decay. [Online]
Available at: http://kansasarborist.com/pdf/pubs/STRENGTH%20LOSS%20FROM%20DECAY.pdf
[Accessed 28 February 2015].
STRENGTH LOSS CALCULATIONS: an evaluation
Bond, J., 2006. Foundations of Tree Risk Analysis: Use of the t/R ratio to Evaluate Trunk Failure Potential. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.itreetools.org/academy_spring2007/an_inventory_parti.pdf
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=774809029335298780&hl=en&as_...
[Accessed 1 March 2015].
For further insight on tree hazard assessment and use of the t/R ratio, the following paper is of interest (presented at the 2006 Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture conference, in Mt Albert, Auckland):
Graham, R., 2007. Assessment of hazardous trees. New Zealand Garden Journal, 10(1), pp. 2-5.
http://www.rnzih.org.nz/RNZIH_Journal/Pages_2-5_from_2007_Vol10_No1.pdf
In 2011, a national conference was held in Birmingham "Trees, people and the built environment". Hosted by the Institute of Chartered Foresters, it consisted of a number of lectures, the proceedings of which are freely available as a single PDF document, which can be download at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRP017.pdf/$FILE/FCRP017.pdf
You can purchase printed copies of the conference proceedings (£37.51), in A4 size, 250 pages in full colour, from:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/forestry-commission/trees%2C-people-and-the-bui...
The proceedings of each lecture can also be freely downloaded, individually, as a PDF document. Available at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-8BVE4R
On 2-3 April 2014, a second conference "Trees, People and the Built Environment II" will take place at the University of Birmingham, in the Midlands. Again hosted by the ICF, it is expected to offer "an important platform to showcase the latest vital research on urban trees and urban forests".
Further details will, no doubt, appear on the Arboricultural Association and Institute of Chartered Foresters websites.
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS NOW AVAILABLE:
Visit www.charteredforesters.org/tpbeii-proceedings/ to download a FREE copy in PDF format, or lulu.com, where printed copies can be purchased.
Proceedings from the 2014 Trees People and the Built Environment II (TPBEII) conference, the international urban tree research event hosted by the Institute of Chartered Foresters (ICF) in Birmingham last year, have been published. Some of the key themes covered in the publication include the environmental, economic and social benefits of urban trees and woodland, featuring research and case studies from around the world.
Articles include:
•Creating Regenerative Cities by H. Girardet
•Million Trees Los Angeles: Carbon Dioxide Sink or Source? by E. G. McPherson, A. Kendall and S. Albers
•Planting ‘Post-Conflict’ Landscapes: Urban Trees in Peacebuilding and Reconstruction by L. D. Shimada and M. Johnston
•Invest From the Ground Up! The Benefits and Economics of City Trees and Greening by K. L. Wolf
•How Useful are Urban Trees? The Lessons of the Manchester Research Project by R. Ennos, D. Armson and M. A. Rahman
•And many more!
With regard to the "Trees in Towns 2" document (previously mentioned, above).
For the casual reader this is, perhaps, a largely boring document. However, the final section of the document - pages 487 to 644 - consists of 12 case studies (Appendix 14), provided as local authority examples of best practice.
The document is substantial, with a hefty price tag. However, it can be purchased for a fraction of the standard price (£13.63) at:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-johnston/trees-in-towns-ii/paperback/produ...
As previously mentioned (above), a summary is available, as a free PDF, in the form of an executive report.
Any local authority, or agent acting on behalf of a local authority (LA), and claiming to act in accordance with current best practice guidance and recommendations will be doing their best to achieve the recommendations outlined in this publication.
Below are a few excerpts from "Trees in Towns 2" on the importance of a tree strategy document:
A tree strategy is "...the most significant indicator of a planned approach to management..."
"Those LAs that have not got an existing tree strategy and are not in the process of developing one, need to make this an immediate priority..."
"Even the existence of a specific tree strategy does not always imply that this is an appropriate document to drive the LA’s tree programme. How the strategy was developed and what detailed policies and plans it contains will determine this."
Did you know that Sheffield's trees, woodlands and green spaces featured in a major European research project: COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research)Action C11?
http://www.greenstructureplanning.eu/COSTC11/sheffield-case.htm
If you use the above link and click on a box named "Greenspaces of Stocksbridge District Sheffield", at the bottom of the webpage, you will see how Stocksbridge featured in the research.
The final COST report:
http://www.greenstructureplanning.eu/COSTC11-book/index.htm
To the best of my knowledge, Sheffield City Council has not formally adopted a Tree Strategy, as recommended by the Trees in Towns 2 report (2008). However, it does have a strategy for green and open spaces: "Sheffield's Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010 - 2030", which you can download as a PDF, from the council's website, using the link below.
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/gre...
The strategy falls far short of what is expected of a tree strategy. However, as part of the Green & Open Space Strategy, a
"Trees and woodland Strategy" is expected to be developed at some point (as has been the case for a couple of years now).
A few more links to informative documents (please excuse the poor referencing):
Dandy, N., 2010a. Climate change and street trees project - The social and cultural values, and governance, of street trees. [Online]
Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf/$FILE/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf
[Accessed 9 March 2014].
Dandy, N., 2010b. “Dangerous” Trees and Community Health and Safety. [Online]
Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/trees_and_society_Apr2010_Dandy.pdf/$FILE/trees_and_society_Apr2010_Dandy.pdf
[Accessed 9 March 2014].
Mabbett, T., 2010. Trees in the mind of a mathematician. essentialARB, Summer, pp. 36-38.
Available as a free PDF document (in the "Archived Features" area) at:
http://www.essentialarb.co.uk/
Roberts, K., 2009. Securing urban trees through community involvement: Planting street and community trees in disadvantaged urban locations. [Online]
Available at: http://www.treesforcities.org/about-us/information-resources/best-practi...
[Accessed 9 March 2014].
Thomas, P., 2001. The shapes of trees: a matter of compromise. Arnoldia: the magazine of the Arnold Arboretum, 61(1), pp. 14-21.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/authors?page=2&start=T
Trees for Cities, 2005. Trees Matter! Bringing lasting benefits to people in towns. [Online]
Available at: http://www.treesforcities.org/about-us/information-resources/best-practi...
[Accessed 9 March 2014].
Trees for Cities, 2007. Best Practice Guidelines: How to assess the suitability of a site for street tree planting and what to do next. [Online]
Available at: http://www.treesforcities.org/about-us/information-resources/best-practi...
[Accessed 9 March 2014].
Excerpt from the Highways Act 1980:
"1980 c. 66
Part IX
Obstruction of highways and streets
Section 141
141 Restriction on planting of trees etc. in or near carriageway.
(1) Subject to sections 64 and 96 above and section 142 below, no tree or shrub shall be planted in a made-up carriageway, or within 15 feet from the centre of a made-up carriageway.
(2) If a tree or shrub is planted in contravention of this section the highway authority for the highway or, in the case of a highway maintainable by reason of tenure, enclosure or prescription, the person liable to maintain the highway, may by notice given either to the owner or to the occupier of the land in which the tree or shrub is planted require him to remove it within 21 days from the date of service of the notice.
(3) If a person fails to comply with a notice under subsection (2) above he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1 level 1 on the standard scale] and if the offence is continued after conviction he is guilty of a further offence and liable to a fine not exceeding 50p for each day on which the offence is so continued."
Annotations:
F1 = Words substituted by virtue of Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), s. 46
For advice on works in close proximity to trees (in addition to BS 5837), the following document describes how works should be controlled at different distances (zones) from a tree and what can and cannot be carried out in each zone:
"Volume 4: NJUG Guidelines For The Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2)"
Available as a free PDF document at the National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) website:
http://www.njug.org.uk/publications/
Information on making a difference in your community:
http://www.communityplanning.net/policy/uk_policy.php
The Community Planning Handbook: How people can shape their cities, towns & villages in any part of the world (Earthscan Tools for Community Planning) [Paperback] (ISBN: 978-1844074907):
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2004) Community Involvement in Planning: The Government's Objectives. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
"This paper sets out the Government's general objectives for community involvement in planning to provide the context for the changes being made to the way that the planning system operates at national, regional and local levels"
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/www.communities...
Friends of the Earth. (2010) Briefing Statements of Community Involvement.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/statements_of_communi...
Section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning
authorities to produce a Statement of Community Involvement.
Here is a link to Sheffield's Statement:
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-docu...
Sheffield's Statement of Community Involvement was adopted in 2006 and is currently in the process of being updated. Between 17 March and 17 April 2014, the public are invited to comment on the Consultation Draft.
"The Statement says how we will consult people and organisations on the preparation of local planning policies and on planning application decisions".
To view the draft and leave your comments, please use the following link:
The Government Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement is Available as a free PDF document at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...
The Government Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement, Incorporating the Government’s Response to the Independent Panel on Forestry’s Final Report, recognised and accepted
“The importance of preserving and maximising the social and environmental benefits provided by trees and woodlands, particularly in and around our towns and cities”
and made the following commitments:
“To benefit people and communities, we will:
• Work with partners from across the [forestry and woodland] sector to promote community involvement in the management of their local woodlands,
• Complete the delivery of the Big Tree Plant and work with the sector in seeking funding for possible future initiatives aimed at developing local access, individual potential and community cohesion through engagement with trees, woods and forests,
• Continue to look for ways to improve access to woodlands, particularly in and around our towns and cities.”
(Forestry Commission England, 2013, p. 3)
Through its key principle of localism, Government has acknowledged its responsibility to facilitate local authorities, businesses and communities to decide their local priorities and has acknowledged that these stakeholders “know their areas and are best placed to decide their local priorities” (Forestry Commission England, 2013, p. 7). To this end, and “to drive economic growth”, it has made a statement of commitment to
“Encourage, where appropriate, local government and Local Enterprise Partnerships to take advantage of the opportunities provided by Government policies to realise the potential of local woodland assets”.
(Forestry Commission England, 2013, p. 3)
Note: The Big Tree Plant is a project, launched by DEFRA and the Forestry Commission in 2010, "to plant one million new trees by 2015, improving green spaces in towns and cities across the country".
For the latest progress, visit:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-9frj9j
Here's a link to an article (available as a free PDF document) by Dr Gabriel Hemery about "Sylva": the first book on the selection, propagation and care of trees in Britain, by John Evelyn, published in 1664:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7491/full/507166a.html
Here is a link to information about the modern version of Sylva, to be published this April:
A NEW ARBORETUM FOR SHEFFIELD!!!
You may have noticed the steep grassy bank between the railway station in town and Park Hill Flats (the "listed" blot on the landscape, at the top of the bank)? Well, that is where the new arboretum will be.
You can view the details at the following link, and download associated documents (the planning application reference is: 13/00794/RG3):
http://publicaccess.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDeta...
From what I gather some planting has taken place. It is interesting to note that when planning permission was granted in, May 2013, by issue of the "Decision Notice", the sixth planning condition stated
" The trees to be retained... shall be protected in accordance with the recommendations made in British Standard 5837: 2005...".
However, as posted above, that British Standard was revised and withdrawn in 2012, superseded by BS 5837 (2012) "Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations".
Let's hope that all planning applications will henceforth ensure that only current industry-specific best practice guidance and recommendations are specified when draughting planning conditions.
Both the *Development Services* and *Building Control* departments have been notified of the error, so there is really no excuse for them to be using an out dated standard for tree protection on future development sites. Well, as of today, at any rate.
If an arboriculturist had been involved in draughting the conditions, as is necessary to aid compliance with the TCPA (1990) section 197 duty (see the initial posting, above), this error would not have occurred.
Excerpts from BS 5837 (2012):
“Use of this document"...
"This British Standard takes the form of guidance and recommendations.
It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and particular care should
be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not misleading.
Any user claiming compliance with this British Standard is expected to be able to
justify any course of action that deviates from its recommendations”.
A NEW ARBORETUM FOR SHEFFIELD!!!
You may have noticed the steep grassy bank between the railway station in town and Park Hill Flats (the "listed" blot on the landscape, at the top of the bank)? Well, that is where the new arboretum will be.
You can view the details at the following link, and download associated documents (the planning application reference is: 13/00794/RG3):
http://publicaccess.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDeta...
From what I gather some planting has taken place. It is interesting to note that when planning permission was granted in, May 2013, by issue of the "Decision Notice", the sixth planning condition stated
" The trees to be retained... shall be protected in accordance with the recommendations made in British Standard 5837: 2005...".
However, as posted above, that British Standard was revised and withdrawn in 2012, superseded by BS 5837 (2012) "Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations".
Let's hope that all planning applications will henceforth ensure that only current industry-specific best practice guidance and recommendations are specified when draughting planning conditions.
Both the *Development Services* and *Building Control* departments have been notified of the error, so there is really no excuse for them to be using an out dated standard for tree protection on future development sites. Well, as of today, at any rate.
If an arboriculturist had been involved in draughting the conditions, as is necessary to aid compliance with the TCPA (1990) section 197 duty (see the initial posting, above), this error would not have occurred.
Excerpts from BS 5837 (2012):
“Use of this document"...
"This British Standard takes the form of guidance and recommendations.
It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and particular care should
be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not misleading.
Any user claiming compliance with this British Standard is expected to be able to
justify any course of action that deviates from its recommendations”.
“‘Trees in Hard Landscapes: A Guide for Delivery” is freely available to download:
http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-hard-landscapes.html
The document deals with the practicalities of preparing for planting trees in the built environment.
You may be interested to know that the latest guidance on veteran tree management (RRP £30) is now available in PDF format as a free download at the "VETree" (an acronym for 'Vocational Education and Training on Veteran Trees') website (once there, you'll find it listed under "Training products"):
http://www.vetree.eu/en/page/94/Training+products
Publication details:
Title: Ancient and other veteran trees: further guidance on management
ISBN: 9780904853094
Year: 2013
Editor: David Lonsdale
The publication has been available for download since December, I believe; it updates the guidance and recommendations of the aforementioned publication by Read (2000) and it is referenced a number of times within British Standard 3998 (2010) - Tree work – Recommendations: the standard to which every tree worker should adhere.
VETree was a European project set up by 5 partner organisations that ran from November 2012 to October 2014, with the aim of setting up a European wide quality training programme in veteran tree management.
Here's a link to the Ancient Tree Guides that are referenced in Ancient and other veteran trees: further guidance on management:
http://www.ancient-tree-forum.org.uk/ancient-tree-forum/atfnews/news04/g...
ANCIENT TREE GUIDES
The above link no longer works. For guidance on how you can help ancient trees, you can download the series of Ancient Tree Guides, produced by the Ancient Tree Forum and the Woodland Trust, using the following link:
http://www.ancienttreeforum.co.uk/resources/ancient-tree-guides/
VALUATION: further references and links to papers on the valuation of trees
Grande-Ortiz, M., Ayuga-Téllez, E. & Contato-Carol, M., 2012.
Methods of tree appraisal: a review of their features and application possibilities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, Volume 38, p. 130–140.
http://oa.upm.es/16805/1/INVE_MEM_2012_137391.pdf
Peterson, K. & Straka, J., 2011.
Specialized discounted cash flow analysis formulas for valuation of benefits and costs of urban trees and forests.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, Volume 37, p. 200-206.
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/articles.asp?JournalID=1&VolumeID=37&IssueID=5
Watson, G., 2002.
Comparing formula methods of tree appraisal.
Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 28, p. 11-18.
If the link for Watson (2002) doesn't work, try this:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Comparing+formula+methods+of+tree+...
THE SECRET £2.2bn AMEY PFI CONTRACT
Extracts From Dave Caulfield’s* Witness Statement, to The High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court), Dated 29th February, 2016
(case ref: CO/613/2016),
*SCC’s Director of Development Services: “responsible for highway related-matters”
10.
IN 2008 THE COUNCIL’S CABINET FORMALLY APPROVED THE OUTSOURCING OF ITS HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE SERVICE following the Department for Transport’s (‘DfT’) approval of an Outline Business Case awarding Sheffield pathfinder status as part of its highway maintenance PFI programme.
11.
The pathfinder STATUS GAVE THE COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE THE FULL SCOPE OF THE OUTSOURCED HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE SERVICE. The Council’s Cabinet approved the procurement of a ‘fence to fence’ service contract to be competitively tendered in the PFI highwaays industry. THE COUNCIL WENT OUT TO THE MARKET IN APRIL 2009 TO PROCURE A SERVICE PROVIDER who could provide a fully integrated highway maintenance service, bringing innovation and highway maintenance expertise to the city.
12.
Following the detailed bid process, including regular reviews by the DfT and independent auditors, THE COUNCIL SECURED THE NECESSARY PFI CREDITS IN MARCH 2009 AND COMMENCED A PROCUREMENT PROCESS under the Competative Dialogue procedure. After a detailed procurement process, AMEY WERE APPOINTED IN MARCH 2012 AND THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO ON 31ST JULY 2012 WITH SERVICES COMMENCING IN AUGUST 2012.
13.
THE 25 YEAR CONTRACT TERM COMPRISES A 5-YEAR CORE INVESTMENT PERIOD TO CLEAR A BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE (TO DECEMBER 2017) AND A 20 YEAR PERIOD OF LIFECYCLE MAINTENANCE.
The funding for the contract is sourced from four banks and three equity providers. THE DfT IS the sponsoring government department, PROVIDING APPROXIMATELY £45 MILLION OF PFI GRANT EACH YEAR.
THE COUNCIL ALSO CONTRIBUTES APPROXIMATELY £1 BILLION OVER THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT through a combination of prudential borrowing and revenue budgets.
THE PFI GRANT IS COMBINED WITH COUNCIL FUNDING AND IS USED TO PAY THE ANNUAL UNITARY CHARGE WHICH PAYS AMEY FOR ALL OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED and pays back the bank debt and equity debt, providing a return on investment for private sector investors.
14.
In accordance with PFI principles, AMEY AS THE SERVICE PROVIDER CARRIES THE MAJORITY OF THE OPERATIONAL, LEGAL AND FINANCIAL RISKS associated with providing a ‘fence to fence’ highway maintenance service. THIS RISK INCLUDES BEING LIABLE FOR ALL HIGHWAY RELATED INSURANCE CLAIMS RESULTING FROM HISTORICALLY POORLY MAINTAINED HIGHWAY ASSETS e.g. footways and highway trees. The purpose of this is to incentivise best practice from Amey.
*****
Please note that in a Witness Statement to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division: case ref: C1/2016/1819), dated 15th JUNE, 2016, Simon Green (SCC’s Executive Director for the “Place” portfolio, to which the Planning and Highways departments report) informed:
“MR CAULFIELD RECENTLY LEFT SCC TO TAKE UP A NEW POST”.
THIS HAS NOT BEEN PUBLICISED.
**** THE DISGRACED STEVE ROBINSON IS NOW AGAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR HIGHWAY TREES. ****
* http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/we-re-not-interested-sheffield-counc...
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/listen-sheffield-council-sorry-after-highw...@f-s-views-on-tree-felling-recorded-1-7498357
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/trees-new-council-chi@f-to-lead-sheffield-felling-confirmed-after-secret-recording-apology-1-7530838
SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT) NEWS UPDATE
Source:
https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-streetsahead-sheffield-g...
*****
Dear Supporters
Thank you for all your continued efforts, wherever you are!
It would be worth reading the following through a couple of times, to help assimilate important information.
Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT), as a Sheffield Tree Action Group (the first), continues to campaign alongside other very active groups across the city, e.g. in Nether Edge and Gleadless Valley. These STAG groups are campaigning citywide for Sheffield Council and Amey – the PFI contractor for the £2.2bn “Streets Ahead” highway maintenance project – to implement current good practice and adequately enforce compliance with it.
As SORT have done for over eighteen months, WE WILL CONTINUE TO HIGHLIGHT AND OPPOSE BAD PRACTICE, AND CAMPAIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT AND CARE OF SHEFFIELD'S URBAN FOREST: in particular, its ~26,000 mature street trees, most of which face the axe because they are associated with disruption to kerbs and pavements and boundary walls, or because they require pruning on a cyclical basis.
Alternative highway engineering specifications for footway, kerb, drain or wall construction have not been commissioned or drafted for consideration as a means to retain mature trees, yet Sheffield City Council and Amey continue to assert that felling is a last resort. The PFI contract permits ~70% of mature street trees to be felled. That represents a catastrophic, loss of canopy cover and severe diminishment of associated, valuable, ecosystem service benefits that street trees afford to neighbourhoods and communities for each year of life.
Prior to the Streets Ahead project, ELLIOTT CONSULTANCY LTD completed “Sheffield City Highways Tree Survey 2006 – 2007”. Elliott recommended that SCC adopt a tree strategy and recommended 1,000 TREES FOR FELLING, with an additional 241 to be crown reduced or to be considered for felling. Of the 35,000 street trees, Elliott stated: “There are 25,000 trees requiring no work at present”. Elliott advised: “Approximately 10,000 trees needed some form of remedial treatment”. Later, Elliott added:
“Did I tell them they needed to remove half of their tree stock? NO.
Did I tell them 70% of trees were nearing the end of their life? NO
[…] Did I even suggest that the 10,000 bits of tree work were urgent? NO
- you have seen the power point and IT WAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT 25,000 TREES NEEDED NO WORK and OF THAT, 10,000 ALMOST HALF, WERE ROUTINE CROWN-LIFTING OPERATIONS, ANOTHER QUARTER BEING DEAD WOODING OPERATIONS, and others including the whole gamut of routine works etc. (I did suggest to them that there were a couple of hundred trees that could be retained, but their condition was such that they may merit replacement – this was the only pre-emptive felling issue that I recall mentioning)”.
At the meeting of full Council, in Sheffield Town Hall on 1st July 2015, Sheffield City Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport (Cllr Terry Fox) indicated that Elliott’s recommendations formed the basis for the Amey PFI contract for the Streets Ahead project. The Cabinet Member stated:
“We had an independent survey done in 2006-2007 which helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract”.
However, Amey have adopted a “6Ds” approach: any tree that is classed as Dangerous, Dead, Dying, Diseased, Damaging, or causing Discrimination (“Causing severe obstruction to pavements”) can be felled. EVEN THE MOST MINOR DISRUPTION TO PAVEMENTS, KERBS OR WALLS IS USED TO JUSTIFY FELLING. The way these criteria are currently being used, means that most mature street trees are likely to be felled during the Amey PFI contract.
TO DATE, OVER 4,000 STREET TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED (most were HEALTHY). In Nether Edge and elsewhere, trees have also been scheduled for felling on the basis that strimmers, mowers or machinery used in close proximity to trees during resurfacing works, such as diggers and the planing machines, will cause damage to roots, of such severity that tree health and structural integrity will be compromised to such extent, that the only reasonable option is to fell affected trees.
SUCH DAMAGE IS AVOIDABLE, IN MOST INSTANCES, BY COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT, NATIONALLY RECOGNISED GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS, MANY OF WHICH THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM CLAIM THEY AIM TO “BUILD ON” AND WRONGLY CLAIM TO COMPLY WITH.
With regard to frequent, continued non-compliance with current good practice, in a communication dated 8th December 2015, Simon Green (Executive Director of Sheffield City Council's Place Management Team)* stated:
“In terms of BS 5837 / NJUG, as has been advised in numerous pieces of correspondence to campaign group activists, we are aware of a small number of isolated incidents where street lighting subcontractors have operated in breach of NJUG guidance. This has been comprehensively addressed by the Council’s CLIENT TECHNICAL TEAM, including a mandatory retraining of the entire Amey workforce and supply chain of subcontractors for the entire project to ensure that this does not occur again.”
*Email: simon.green@sheffield.gov.uk
If re-training has occurred, it has been ineffective, as there continue to be frequent occurrences of non-compliance with current good practice that result in irreversible damage to valuable trees. Currently, SORT are not aware that Sheffield City Council or Amey have any steps in place to ENSURE TIMELY INTERVENTION to stop damaging / harmful acts that have been identified, or to safeguard against unnecessary, avoidable damage, loss and environmental degradation. Remember, the Government has agreed to adopt & apply the precautionary principle in its agreement to Agenda 21at the Earth Summit meeting at Rio, in 1992, which states:
“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, LACK OF FULL SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY SHALL NOT BE USED AS A REASON FOR POSTPONING COST-EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO PREVENT ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION.' (Principle 15)".
In October 2016, Freedom of Information request (FOI/2671) response (from SCC’s Resources Business Support team) stated:
“THE STREETS AHEAD CONTRACT IS BASED ON PERFORMANCE SELF-MONITORING BY AMEY. However, in order to ensure compliance with the contract, the Council undertakes a 100% audit check of tree replacement proposals and a 10% sample check of tree maintenance works.”
In a separate communication, later the same month, DARREN BUTT (the Amey Operations Director), stated:
“With regards to monitoring of our activities and improvements, THE STREETS AHEAD HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PERFORMANCE SELF-MONITORING and is robustly SELF-MONITORED BY AMEY, this does not however mean that the works are not independently scrutinised and regulated. Sheffield City Council carries out such sample checks as are necessary to validate the Amey self-monitoring regime. There are various performance measures and targets included in the Highway Maintenance contract...”
Mr Butt is responsible for all tree work, and ALL highway MAINTENANCE once core investment works have been done (new lighting and resurfacing, etc). Please note that Amey’s GRAEME SYMONDS is the Core Investment Project Director. As such, he is responsible for all NEW resurfacing, drainage and lighting works – the works that damage trees. At the Amey roadshow in Heeley, in November 2015, Mr Butt informed that both he and Mr Symonds ensure that both their teams work in cooperation, to minimise the likelihood of acts harmful to trees. However, to date, there has been an absence of any evidence to support the claim.
In September, 2016, at the Amey roadshow on Psalter Lane, Amey’s Area Stewards (PR people) informed that Sheffield City Council’s HIGHWAYS PFI CLIENT TEAM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE ON-SITE SUPERVISION, MONITORING AND AUDITING OF HIGHWAY WORKS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TREES, AND FOR ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH GOOD PRACTICE AND POLICY COMMITMENTS. The Stewards informed that if you fill out a form at a roadshow event, to ask a question, complain, or request information, it is sent to the Council’s Highways PFI Client Team. The team is responsible for providing technical expertise for the Streets Ahead project and is led by DAVID NEEDHAM.
CONTACT DETAILS are as follows:
E-mail: David.Needham@sheffield.gov.uk
E-mail: highwayspficlientteam@sheffield.gov.uk
Tel: 0114 205 7421 (preferably before 4:00pm)
ADDRESS:
5th Floor,
Howden House,
1 Union Street
Sheffield
S1 2SH.
It is thought that DAVID WAIN, as Leader of the Council’s Environmental Maintenance Technical Team, is part of the Highways PFI Client Team. He is the Council’s Environmental Technical Officer, within the Highways Maintenance Division, “RESPONSIBLE FOR HIGHWAY TREES”; he has also attended a “street walk” and has been a panel “expert” at the two “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum meetings that have occurred to date (the latest of which was on 2nd September, 2015). Mr Wain can be contacted via E-mail: David.Wain@sheffield.gov.uk
In August, 2016, the SCC Cabinet Member for the Environment (Cllr BRYAN LODGE) informed that Sheffield City Council’s Highways PFI Client Team do not have any arboriculturists of their own, as all SCC arboriculturists have left and are now employed by Amey. However, the FOI/2671 request asked:
“How many competent arboriculturists are directly employed by Sheffield City Council to oversee Tree maintenance in the Streets Ahead project?”
The response:
“Sheffield City Council directly employs 5 staff with arboricultural qualifications on the Streets Ahead contract.”
THE RESPONSE DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THE “STAFF WITH ARBORICULTURAL QUALIFICATIONS” ARE IN FACT ARBORICULTURISTS, OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE COMPETENT.
Both terms are defined within the British Standards that Sheffield City Council and Amey claim to comply with and aim to “build on” (BS 5837:2012 & BS 3998:2010)
“3.3 arboriculturist
Person who has, through relevant education, training and experience, gained expertise in the field of trees in relation to construction
3.4 competent person
Person who has training and experience relevant to the matter being addressed and an understanding of the requirements of the particular task being approached
NOTE A competent person is expected to be able to advise on the best means by which the recommendations of this British Standard may be implemented.”
(The British Standards Institution, 2012, p. 3)
After a wait of over fourteen months, WE NOW HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP SHAPE WHAT WE HOPE WILL BE SHEFFIELD’S FIRST TREE STRATEGY. A DRAFT IS CURRENTLY ONLINE FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION, WITH A RESPONSE DEADLINE FOR THE END OF NOVEMBER, 2016.
We are greatly inspired by THE UNITED NATIONS’ RECENT PUBLICATION OF URBAN FORESTRY GUIDANCE (FAO FORESTRY PAPER 178), aimed at decision-makers, and, with continued support from the Woodland Trust and a range of leading green space professionals, particularly leading figures from the world of arboriculture, we remain hopeful for a more enlightened, modern approach to tree population management by Sheffield City Council and its strategic partners. Hopefully, a planned, systematic, integrated approach that recognises the value of trees and associated benefits, promotes and enforces compliance with current good practice, and ensures that policy and decisions are: “Soundly based on available evidence, and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions” (The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 25).
The UN good practice guidance (FAO Forestry Paper 178) can be accessed here: http://www.fao.org/forestry/news/92439/en/
To find out more, follow these links:
http://bit.ly/2dGxO01
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-month...
“The Sheffield street tree population is owned by the people of Sheffield and the council are just custodians of these trees” ~ Moray Simpson (Arboriculturist and former Chairman of Municipal Tree Officer’s Association).
Thank you for all your ongoing help and support everybody. Please comment on Sheffield’s draft tree strategy ASAP - time is short!
AFOOFA
SORT
References:
1. The British Standards Institution, 2012. British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations".
London: BSI Standards Ltd.
2. The National Tree Safety Group, 2011. Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers. Forestry Commission Stock Code: FCMS024 ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
Available at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCMS024.pdf/$FILE/FCMS024.pdf
“…there has also been considerable loss of veteran tree habitat due to ill-informed safety management. The conservation and continuity of old trees in the landscape depends on better informed management, which takes into account their intrinsic values as well as the legal implications of ownership.”
(Read, 2000, p. 2)
HEALTH & THE URBAN FOREST
Public Health England, 2014.
Everybody active, every day: an evidence-based approach to physical activity, London: PHE publications.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...
Excerpt:
"Around one in two women and a third of men in England are damaging
their health through a lack of physical activity. This is unsustainable and
costing the UK an estimated £7.4bn a year. If current trends continue,
the increasing costs of health and social care will destabilise public
services and take a toll on quality of life for individuals and communities.
• over one in four women and one in five men do less than 30 minutes
of physical activity a week, so are classified as ‘inactive’
• physical inactivity is the fourth largest cause of disease and disability
in the UK"
ukactive, 2014. Turning the tide of inactivity. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ukactive.com/turningthetide/pdf/Turning%20the%20tide%20of%20i...
[Accessed 10 March 2015].
According to this report, 30.41 per cent of adults in Sheffield are inactive. This is costing £19,937,814 per year for every 100,000 people that make up the population of Sheffield.
Excerpts:
"To turn the tide of inactivity it is critical for there to be a clearly-articulated national and local ambition. This report has found that reducing physical inactivity by just one per cent a year over a five-year period would save the UK economy just under £1.2bn.
If every local authority was able to reduce inactivity levels by one per cent year on year over this five-year period they would save local taxpayers £44 per household. More importantly, they would improve the health and wellbeing of their local communities."
KEY FINDINGS:
"Yorkshire is characterised by large areas of open space (59 per cent) compared with the
national average of 46 per cent
Despite this, Yorkshire’s inactivity levels (30 per cent) are above the national average of 29 per cent
Yorkshire spends significantly more on physical activity programmes (3.5 per cent of its annual public health budget) than the national average of 2.4 per cent"
Williams, K., O'Brien, L. & Stewart, A., 2013.
Urban health and urban forestry: how can forest management agencies help?.
Arboricultural Journal: The International Journal of Urban Forestry, Volume 35, p. 119-133.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03071375.2013.852358
"There is increasing evidence that green space, including the urban forest, is linked to
significant human health benefits both mentally and physically. This has led to some
urban forestry programmes designed with the specific goal of improving human health.
In this paper, empirical research to identify how urban forestry might best contribute to
such benefits is reviewed. Four questions are considered:
(1) What health outcomes should agencies aim to improve?
(2) What kinds of urban forestry should be prioritised for human health?
(3) What kinds of activities and social programmes should agencies support?
(4) What kinds of partnerships are required to harness the health benefits of urban forestry?"
O’Brien, L., Williams, K. & Stewart, A., 2010.
Urban health and health inequalities and the role of urban forestry in Britain: a review, s.l.: Forest Research.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/urban_health_and_forestry_review_2010.pdf/$FILE/urban_health_and_forestry_review_2010.pdf
What right/s does the council, or its agents, have to fell “our” trees?
A number of articles and letters that have appeared in Look Local over the last few weeks, demonstrating frustration amongst Stocksbridge residents as to why street trees are being felled/removed on behalf of the council. It is my hope that the content of this letter, brief though it is, will help dispel some of the mystery and frustration surrounding the decision making process.
With regard to the large oak on Melbourne Road, Amey have posted a site notice on the tree stating that the tree “…needs to be removed…” because “The tree has decay or disease”. It is my understanding that in August 2012 Amey embarked on a 25 year contract with Sheffield City Council to provide highway maintenance throughout the city. That includes maintenance of the tree population along highways (~35,000 trees).
One observer expressed concern that protected trees would be destroyed. Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives the council power to make orders to protect trees or woodlands in their area. Section 197 is pretty important too. See the following excerpt:
“It shall be the duty of the local planning authority—
(a) to ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that in granting planning permission for any development adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees; and
(b) to make such orders under section 198 as appear to the authority to be necessary in connection with the grant of such permission, whether for giving effect to such conditions or otherwise”.
In accordance with part 3 of The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012 (section 14: Exemptions), Amey is entitled to execute works to any tree or woodland “protected” by a Tree Preservation Order, as Amey represents a “statutory undertaker” and works are in compliance with obligations imposed by or under Act/s of Parliament.
Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, henceforth referred to as “the Act”, places a duty on highway authorities to maintain the highway. It is interesting to note that Barrister Charles Mynors (arguably the foremost authority on Law with regard to trees in England) noted in his book, The Law of Trees, Forests and Hedgerows (2002), that failure to inspect and maintain highway trees, or remove defective ones, is “not likely” to constitute a neglect of this duty.
With regard to trees “planted” (as opposed to naturally arisen) or “laid out” in the verge, Section 96 of the Act states that no tree will be allowed to remain, “in such a situation as to hinder the reasonable use of the highway by any person entitled to use it, or so as to be a nuisance or injurious to the owner or occupier of premises adjacent to the highway”. It could be argued that the oak on Melbourne Road does represent a hindrance. Although the tree has potential to cause injury, as all trees do, a thorough assessment of tree condition is required to inform any risk assessment and determine what action is necessary to reduce the likelihood of injury or damage to an acceptable level, if any. There is also a duty under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 to take reasonable care to protect users of the highway.
Section 130 of the Act states:
“…it is the duty of a council who are a highway authority to prevent, as far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of—
(a) the highways for which they are the highway authority, and
(b) any highway for which they are not the highway authority, if, in their opinion, the stopping up or obstruction of that highway would be prejudicial to the interests of their area”.
Section 150 of the Act places a duty on the highway authority to remove obstructions from the highway. The large oak on Melbourne Road could reasonably be classed as an obstruction, as it is actually taking up space within the part of the road used by vehicles.
It is worth noting that the tree removal notice pinned to the oak does not mention the Highways Act. Nor does it make it clear exactly why the tree is to be removed, or whether or not the tree has been inspected by a competent arboriculturist. Trees should be inspected in accordance with current arboricultural sector best practice guidance and recommendations. For clarity, definitions of “competent” and “arboriculturist” are provided below, reproduced from British Standard 3998: Tree work – Recommendations (2010):
• competent person:
“person who has training and experience relevant to the matter being addressed and an understanding of the requirements of the particular
task being approached…” …”A competent person is expected to understand the hazards pertinent to the task being carried out and the methods to be implemented to eliminate or reduce the risks that can arise…”
• Arboriculturist:
A “person who, through relevant education, training and experience, has gained recognized expertise in the care of trees”.
It should be apparent from the above definitions, that achievement of a diploma, or higher education qualification in Forestry or Arboriculture, does not, alone, make an arboriculturist, nor ensure competency. Many higher education courses these days offer little training in practical tasks and little opportunity, if any, to gain workplace experience.
Where decay is suspected, and a tree is considered to be particularly valuable in terms of amenity or the provision of ecosystem goods and services (which can be awarded a monetary value, if necessary), detailed investigations can be undertaken to detect the presence and extent of both decay and “sound” wood. Further investigation may be needed to identify the agent of decay, its mode of action and the mechanical properties of remaining “sound” wood, in order to inform tree management decisions.
Amey say that the Melbourne Road oak is infected by the chicken-of-the-woods fungus (Laetiporus sulphureus). This is known to cause brown rot decay, resulting in the formation of internal cavities. The swelling of the lower trunk on the veteran oak on Melbourne Road is indicative of such a cavity. Amey intend to assess the presence and extent of decay within the tree using PiCUS® sonic tomography. This involves the computer analysis of data produced as sound waves are sent and travel through the wood, and interpretation of subsequent computer generated images (tomograms), produced in real time. If there is insufficient thickness of sound wood around the decayed region, then Amey would have sufficient evidence to justify severe pruning or tree removal, as such extensive loss of cross-sectional area would represent an unacceptable level of risk of structural failure. It would be nice if Amey would publish the tomograms for the public to see, free of charge.
Section 154 of the Act makes the following provisions:
“(1) Where a hedge, tree or shrub overhangs a highway or any other road or footpath to which the public has access so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of vehicles or pedestrians, or obstructs or interferes with the view of drivers of vehicles or the light from a public lamp, or overhangs a highway so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of horse-riders, a competent authority may, by notice either to the owner of the hedge, tree or shrub or to the occupier of the land on which it is growing, require him within 14 days from the date of service of the notice so to lop or cut it as to remove the cause of the danger, obstruction or interference”.
“(2) Where it appears to a competent authority for any highway, or for any other road or footpath to which the public has access—
(a) that any hedge, tree or shrub is dead, diseased, damaged or insecurely rooted, and
(b) that by reason of its condition it, or part of it, is likely to cause danger by falling on the highway, road or footpath,
the authority may, by notice either to the owner of the hedge, tree or shrub or to the occupier of the land on which it is situated, require him within 14 days from the date of service of the notice so to cut or fell it as to remove the likelihood of danger”. “…Subject to any order made on appeal, if a person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) or (2) above fails to comply with it within the period specified in those subsections, the authority who served the notice may carry out the work required by the notice and recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the person in default”.
It is possible that Amey thought they were using subsection 2 when placing the site notice on the tree, although it would appear that at the time of placing the notice the likelihood of danger had not been fully assessed. So, perhaps, their decision to remove the tree on grounds of “decay or disease” was a little premature. The tree certainly appears to have withstood the strong gales of the week commencing 17/2/2014 very well, without failure or any sign of failure in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, it should be noted that the tree is not in leaf or in seed and that if it had been, particularly following rain (which adds weight to plant parts), the tree may not have remained intact. For such reasons, it is prudent to inspect trees at different times of year, and particularly following extreme weather events.
Furthermore, the council has discretionary powers under Section 23 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, to respond to requests to work on trees on privately owned land and “recover expenses reasonably incurred in doing so”. Subsection 4 of section 23 is particularly interesting, in that it permits the council to undertake tree work on any privately owned tree that it is satisfied is “likely to cause damage to persons or property… on… land… which is owned or occupied by the council”, regardless of whether or not the name and address of the owner or occupier of the tree is known. The council is entitled to “take such steps on the land, whether by felling the tree or otherwise, as it thinks are appropriate for the purpose of making the tree safe and may recover the expenses reasonably incurred in doing so”. If the council knows the name and address of the owner or occupier, it has the power to serve a notice on the owner/occupier, specifying the works it considers necessary to make the tree safe and the timeframe in which they must be completed: a period of at least 21 days must be allowed, during which an appeal can be made. In the event of non-compliance, “the council may take the steps specified in the notice and recover from that person the expenses reasonably incurred in doing so”.
On a final note, taxpayers may rightly question whether it is appropriate and in the public interest to have the same private contractor inspecting trees and making recommendations for works as well as undertaking the works. There is clearly a conflict of interest in such a scenario and it is clearly sensible, with regard to trees maintained at public expense, for inspections and recommendations to be undertaken by a party independent of that responsible for undertaking recommended works, particularly where the primary objective of one or more parties is to maximise financial reward.
SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION...
The Highways Act, as well as other Acts of parliament and various statutory instruments, can be viewed free of charge, online, at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/contents
Those who wish to learn more are advised to consult the publications and websites detailed below, and references therein.
Tree Inspection
Lonsdale, D. (1999) Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management. Research for Amenity Trees No.7, London: The Stationery Office.
Mattheck, C. and Breloer, H. (1994) The Body Language Of Trees: A Handbook For Failure Analysis, London: HMSO.
Weber, K. and Mattheck, C. (2003) Manual of Wood Decays, Ampfield: The Arboricultural Association.
Anon, 2008. [Draft] Recommendations for Tree Safety Inspection. (BS 8516), London: British Standards Institution.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.treeworks.co.uk/downloads/blog/BS_8516_Recommendations_for_tr...
http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/2377-bs8516-2008-recommendations...
To get some idea of why the above standard was not approved, see the following response documents:
http://www.ancient-tree-forum.org.uk/ancient-tree-forum/atfnews/images/R...
http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/Contribute/BritishStandards_Recomm...
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/TreeSafetyInspection_tcm9-195039.pdf
Lonsdale, D., 2000. Hazards From Trees: A general guide. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk
Lonsdale, D., n.d. Overview of techniques and procedures for assessing the probability of tree failure. [Online]
Available at: http://www.treeworks.co.uk/downloads/1%20-%20DL%20tree%20Statics%20Final...
[Accessed 8 July 2012].
RISK MANAGEMENT...
Davies, C., Fay, N. & Mynors, C., 2000. Veteran Trees: A guide to risk and responsibility (IN131). Peterborough: English Nature.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/75036
http://vscg.co.uk/good-practice/published/tree-safety-management
The National Tree Safety Group (2011) Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission (Forestry Commission stock code: FCM 024).
Excerpt (from page 53):
"OBVIOUS FEATURES THAT MAY INDICATE STRUCTURAL FAILURE
it is inappropriate to react to tree
defects as though they are all
immediately hazardous. Growth
deformities and other defects do
not necessarily indicate structural
weakness. When noting features
that might indicate a likelihood of
weakness or collapse, it is
important that concern for risk of
failure is restricted to events likely
in the near future. trees exhibit a
wide range of such features, and
the scope for interpreting their
significance is complex,
particularly when considering the
likelihood of non-immediate
failure. for example, anomalies in
tree growth may indicate internal
decay and hollowing; but
anomalies in form may be
attributable to the tree having
compensated for the decay, by
mechanically adapting to natural
processes."
The National tree Safety Group (2011) Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Landowner summary of guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for estates and smallholdings, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission (Forestry Commission stock code: FCM 025).
Both are available as free PDF documents at…
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/publications.nsf/searchpub/?SearchVie...(FCMS024)&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=TRUE
AN INTRODUCTION TO TREE BIOLOGY AND DECAY
A useful link to a website full of useful information (a perfect place to start)…
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/shigo/NTB.html
Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1973. A Tree Hurts Too. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/popular-publications...
Also available to view and download at:
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/hardtoget/ntb59/index.html
James, K., 2003. Dynamic loading of trees. Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 29, p. 165-171.
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/newresults.asp?qu=wounding&FreeText=on&journals...
Pearce, R., 2000. Decay development and its restriction in trees. Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 26, p. 1-10.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/articles.asp?JournalID=1&VolumeID=26&IssueID=1
Shigo, A., 1979. Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 419. Tree Decay: An Expanded Concept. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Available online as a free PDF document. You may view this publication (strongly recommended), free, online at:
http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/974
OR
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/hardtoget/ntb119/pg1-21/index.html
Shigo, A. & Marx, H., 1977. Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 405. The Compartmentalization Of Decay In Trees. Washington, D.C.: Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/popular-publications...
Shigo, A. & Shortle, W., 1977. "New" ideas in tree care. Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 3, p. 1-6.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/articles.asp?JournalID=1&VolumeID=3&IssueID=1
Smith, K., 1988. Wounding, compartmentalization, and treatment tradeoffs. Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 14, p. 226-229.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/articles.asp?JournalID=1&VolumeID=14&IssueID=9
MORE DETAILED TREE BIOLOGY INFORMATION...
Boddy, L. & Rayner, A., 1983. Origins of decay in living deciduous trees: the role of moisture content and a reappraisal of the expanded concept of tree decay. New Phytologist, Volume 94, p. 623-641.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1983.tb04871.x/ab...
Du, S. & Yamamoto, F., 2007. An overview of the biology of reaction wood formation. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 49(2), p. 131−143.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2007.00427.x/full
Manion, P., 2003. Evolution of concepts in forest pathology. Phytopathology, Volume 93, p. 1052-1055.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PHYTO.2003.93.8.1052
Mellerowicz, E., Baucher, M., Sundberg, B. & Boerjan, W., 2001. Unravelling cell wall formation in the woody dicot stem. Plant Molecular Biology, Volume 47, p. 239–274.
Available as a free PDF document via Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=7317155032419882812&hl=en&as...
Pearce, R., 1996. Antimicrobial defences in the wood of living trees. New Phytologist, Volume 132, p. 203-233.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1996.tb01842.x/ab...
Plomion, C., Le Provost, G. & Stokes, A., 2001. Wood formation in trees. Plant Physiology, Volume 127, p. 1513-1523.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/127/4/1513.short
Thibaut, B., Gril, J. & Fournier, M., 2001. Mechanics of wood and trees: some new highlights for an old story. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences – Series II b, Volume 329, p. 701–716.
You can purchase various journal articles by searching for the publication using Google Scholar and accessing the publisher’s website.
Incorporating Trees in Urban Design
Trees and Design Action Group (2012) Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers, Trees and Design Action Group.
Available as a free PDF document at: http://www.tdag.org.uk/
FINDING A COMPETENT ARBORICULTURIST...
http://www.charteredforesters.org/about-the-icf/
http://www.trees.org.uk/aa/news/-Trees-in-the-Townscape-a-new-guide-85.html
TREE VALUATION...
Elmendorf, W., 2008. The importance of trees and nature in community: a review of the relative literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2008, Volume 34, p. 152–156.
Available as a free PDF document at the International Society of Arboriculture website:
http://auf.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=3043&Type=2
Peper, P.J; McPherson, E.G; Simpson, J.R; Gardner, S.L; Vargas, K.E; Xiao, Q., 2007. New York City, New York Municipal Forest Resource Analysis, Davis: USDA Forest Service.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/products/2/psw_cufr687_NYC_MFRA.pdf
OR
http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/citations/new-york-c...
Rodgers, K., Jarratt, T. and Hansford, D. (2011) Torbay's Urban Forest: Assessing urban forest effects and values, Exeter: Treeconomics.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.treeconomics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Torbays-Urban-Forest.pdf
Readers should note that the following addendum was issued by the authors following publication:
“It has come to our attention that the tonnes measure used throughout this report has been referred to as; tonnes, tons, metric tonnes and metric tons. To note, all weight measures were taken in tonnes.”
Sarajevs, V. (2011) Street Tree Valuation Systems, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission (Research Note 008).
Available as a free PDF document at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRN008.pdf/$FILE/FCRN008.pdf
Trees and Design Action Group, 2010. No Trees, No Future.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.tdag.org.uk/no-trees-no-future.html
OR
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/london-tdag-no-trees-no-future-with-cs.pdf/$FILE/london-tdag-no-trees-no-future-with-cs.pdf
UNDERSTANDING ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES
Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F. & Zipperer, W., 2011. A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 99, p. 196–206.
Available as a free PDF document via Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=A+framework+for+developing+urban+f...
Escobedo, F., Kroeger, T. & Wagner, J., 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, Volume 159, p. 2078-2087.
Available as a free PDF document via Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Urban+forests+and+pollution+...
de Groot, R., Alkemade, J., Braat, L. & Hein, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, Volume 7, p. 260–272.
Available as a free PDF document via Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=17957884838351513211&hl=en&a...
de Groot, R., Wilson, M. & Boumans, R., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and srvices. Ecological Economics, Volume 41, p. 393–408.
Available as a free PDF document via Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=7413599904573276464&hl=en&as...
Sarajevs, V., 2011. Health Benefits of Street Trees, Farnham: Forest Research.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-8JCEJH
ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY FOR PROTECTION...
TEMPO - Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders: A systematised assessment tool for TPO suitability.
View at: http://www.flac.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TEMPO-GN.pdf
Government Advice on the Management of Street Trees
Britt, C; Johnston, M; Riding, A; Slater, J; King, H; Gladstone, M; McMillan, S; Mole, A; Allder, C; Ashworth, P; Devine, T; Morgan, C; Martin, J. et al., 2008. Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Britt, C; Johnston, M; Riding, A; Slater, J; King, H; Gladstone, M; McMillan, S; Mole, A; Allder, C; Ashworth, P; Devine, T; Morgan, C; Martin, J. et al., 2008. Trees in Towns II: A new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management. Executive Summary. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/www.communities...
A slideshow by one of the main authors of Trees in Towns 2 is available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.treeworks.co.uk/PDFs/s15speakers/Mark_Johnston_Myerscough_Col...
EUROPEAN COMMITMENT TOWARD RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, BASED ON THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE...
See European directive 2001/42/EC, available online as a free PDF document:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm
UK POLICY COMMITMENT TOWARD COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT...
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2008. Planning Policy Statement 12: creating strong safe and prosperous communities through Local Spatial Planning. London: TSO (The Stationery Office).
Available as a free PDF document at:
http://www.communityplanning.net/pub-film/pdf/PlanningPolicyStatement12.pdf
Excerpt:
“The UK government has signed up to the UNECE Convention on Access to
Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters (the Ảrhus Convention). Article 7 states:”
“Each Party shall make appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public
to participate during the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the
environment, within a transparent and fair framework, having provided the
necessary information to the public.”
THE IMPORTANCE OF DEAD WOOD HABITAT, CAVITIES AND THE MANAGEMENT OF VETERAN TREES...
Humphrey, J. & Bailey, S., 2012. Practice Guide: Managing Deadwood in Forests and Woodlands. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
Available as a free PDF document at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/searchall.nsf/GoogleResults?open=&cx=...
Read, H., 2000. Veteran Trees: A guide to good management (IN13). Peterborough: English Nature.
Available as a series of free PDF documents at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/75035
You can also view this publication online at:
http://autonopedia.org/garden-and-farm/trees-and-woodland/veteran-trees-...
Excerpt:
“Laetiporus sulphureus (Figure 15) break down only the dead wood. This decays the centre of the tree but leaves the outer, living layers intact. While this may not be desirable from the point of view of a commercial forester, the tree is not harmed and may actually benefit. Decay and hollowing are part of a nutrient recycling process.The tree can make use of the products of wood decay within the trunk by producing aerial roots from its above ground parts, which grow into the rotting stem. A hollow tube may respond differently from a solid trunk in high winds and not necessarily more likely to snap provided its walls are not so thin that buckling occurs”.
(Read, 2000, p. 33)
Rural Development Service, 2006. Environmental Stewardship Farm Environment Plan Guidance 009: Identifying Ancient Trees. Sheffield: Natural England.
Available as a free PDF document at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/hls/fep.aspx
BRITISH STANDARDS...
To get an idea of what British Standards look like, and their content, you could take a look at the draft standards that are occasionally made available for public comment, such as BS 3998:2010 Tree work. Recommendations:
http://www.trees.org.uk/c.793499/aa/documents/BS3998DPC1.8.08.pdf
You can purchase the approved version of BS 3998:2010 (and other standards) at:
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030089960
At present, BS 5837 (2012) Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations is freely available online as a PDF document at the website for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Get it by pasting the following in to a search engine (get it while you can, as it usually costs about £192):
http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/Document%2031%20-%20BS5837-2012%20-%20Trees%2...
This year, a new British Standard was approved: BS 8545:2014 Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape – Recommendations.
The draft version is available as a free PDF document online at:
http://www.trees.org.uk/aa/news/New-BS-8545-draft-out-for-consultation-1...
Excerpt (from page 11 of the draft document):
“This British Standard gives recommendations for transplanting young trees successfully from the nursery, through to achieving their eventual independence in the landscape.
This British Standard applies to trees where a distinct crown has been prepared in the nursery. It does not apply to whips*, transplants* and seedlings, or to other woody material.
NOTE Although this standard does not give specific recommendations for other woody material, its provisions can be applied to such material, e.g. to shrubs.”
* These are plants that are less than 125cm in height from ground level and are as defined by BS 3936-1:1992 Nursery stock — Part 1: Specification for trees and shrubs.
RESPONSIBLE DIRECT ACTION...
Why not become a voluntary Tree Warden? As such, you would help identify trees worthy of protection, identify hazards, protect and care for trees in your local neighbourhood, and help the local authority to monitor tree works, so as to ensure compliance with the aforementioned British Standards.
http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/tree-wardens